Is God perfect?

[michel]

Your aforementioned querolousness desires a new thread, I feel.

Am I seen to be 'habitually complaining' ? I am sorry if I do.

 

[michel]

Æsahættr;

Thank you for your reply; alas it is time for bed! That means you will be spared my further thoughts ! 'Till we meet again!

 

[lilithu]

What do you mean by natural law? If you mean the laws of physics, then bear in mind that they come as part and package of our Universe. If God created the Universe He made the laws of physics.

Of course, but having done so, God is constrained. If f=ma, then f=ma. If if e=mc2, then e=mc2. They possibly could have been some other laws, but then we would not be around to be having this conversation. They are these laws, and this is the way that this universe works. Given that the natural laws of the universe are what they are, certain things have to happen and certain things cannot happen. God cannot say, "ok, on Tuesday Oct 18th, 2005, in the northwest portion of new zealand, the gravitational constant will be 1/4 of what it usually is." Whether this constraint is one of will (God chooses not to destroy the universe) or necessity (God cannot destroy the universe), even I don't care to speculate about. But since I believe that God and creation are integrally interwined, not separate from each other, I also believe that God could not destroy creation without drastically altering Godself.

 

[Æsahættr]

Of course, but having done so, God is constrained. If f=ma, then f=ma. If if e=mc2, then e=mc2. They possibly could have been some other laws, but then we would not be around to be having this conversation. They are these laws, and this is the way that this universe works. Given that the natural laws of the universe are what they are, certain things have to happen and certain things cannot happen. God cannot say, "ok, on Tuesday Oct 18th, 2005, in the northwest portion of new zealand, the gravitational constant will be 1/4 of what it usually is." Whether this constraint is one of will (God chooses not to destroy the universe) or necessity (God cannot destroy the universe), even I don't care to speculate about. But since I believe that God and creation are integrally interwined, not separate from each other, I also believe that God could not destroy creation without drastically altering Godself.

But if He is omniscient then He would have known everything that would happen when He created the world. Therefore He cannot have any restrictions as He could have made the initial laws to allow Him to do whatever He wanted later on.

 

[lilithu]

We're seriously off-topic now but here goes:

Actually, on a side note, this is linked to an interesting thing I read the other day. Traditional Einsteinian physics leaves room for a God in that our laws cannot explain the Universe in the very earliest stages of the Big Bang, and as such allows for the explanation 'God did it.' However, apparently in Quantam Physics this gap is no longer a problem because it is possible for the 4 dimensions of the Universe to be closed, like the surface of a sphere, with no beginning point. As such, there is no moment of creation. The Universe can be self contained without any moment at which it began, although as I understand it the Big Bang still took place, it's just that it occupies one particular place in spacetime. As such there is nothing for a God to do! He would just be an observer if He existed at all.

Well, from our perspective there would be a beginning, but I think I understand what you're saying. The last time I heard Hawking explain it, he described a sphere and a plane intersecting. At the first point there the plane touches the sphere, that would be our "bigbang." It's not the creation of the universe per se as the universe was already in existence, but it's the first point to which we can relate in terms of time. And it's not an explosion, but it would appear as a rapid expansion. As the plane passes thru the sphere, the universe appears to expand, rapidly at first and then slower and slower. Until, one would think, it gets to the widest circumference, at which point the universe should start contracting again, from our perspective. Very cool. But I haven't kept up with these theories, and I am not sure how that description relates to 'brane theory, tho they seem to have similarities.

Whether or not there is a God, there should be no gap. Science should be able to explain all of creation or else something is wrong with the theory. Religion should not "fill the gaps" but add another layer of explanation. If there is a God, God does not work between the gaps but thru the process. In my conception of God, God is not just observer or even the "doer" but the process by which all is done. It makes no sense to me for God to "stand apart" from creation like a gigantically big watchmaker. If that were that case, what would we need God for after the "watch" was created? (And what keeps the "watch" in existence?) Does God just stick around like a petulant child demanding that we show appreciation for his creation? Either God underlies everything or God underlies nothing. As Einstein said, "there are only two ways to look at this world, either everything is a miracle or nothing is a miracle."

 

[lilithu]

But if He is omniscient then He would have known everything that would happen when He created the world. Therefore He cannot have any restrictions as He could have made the initial laws to allow Him to do whatever He wanted later on.

I'm sorry, but how could "He" do that? For creation to have form it must have constraints. To leave every possibility open is to never create. What laws could He make that would not constrain him in some way later?

If God is omnipotent, it is in terms of potential not actuality. God could have made an infinite number of different laws, the vast vast majority of which would never have given rise to life as we know it. And who knows, maybe God did in the infinite number of intersections between planes and spheres and whatnot. (Giordano Bruno thought that there was an infinite number of different universes.) But having made the laws that "He" did in this universe, infinite potential becomes constrained to finite actuality. The same physical laws that make this particlar universe possible constrains what can be done in it.

 

[Quiddity]

But having made the laws that "He" did in this universe, infinite potential becomes constrained to finite actuality.

I couldn't have said it better. Nice job in your wording...:clap

~Victor

 

[mr.guy]

Erm, well natural disasters to start off with... As far as I'm concerned, a system where the mistakes of people leads to the deaths of others is not perfect.

Hate to say it, but this is a pretty tired argument. A perfect God could be perfectly content with the destruction of the population of a little blue-green planet.

What else? Oh, the fact that the Universe is not going to survive forever. Surely if God can create a Universe He can create one which is stable.

Maybe he could. Just cause he didn't do things the way YOU like it, doesn't mean he's unable. God could be a jerk.

The extinction of species, that's another one. What's the point in designing species that are doomed to become extinct.

The omniscience factor. When he does things and for how long are pretty moot if you knew how it was all gonna end anyway. Kinda like a model plane one might build for the purpose of stuffing with firecrackers and blowing up. I got alot of mileage in pyrotechnics, why can't God? Until marijuana is extinct, i won't hold much of this to him on this account.

Until, one would think, it gets to the widest circumference, at which point the universe should start contracting again, from our perspective. Very cool.

Are you being clever? An entropy joke!

 

[Merlin]

The idea of a non-perfect God makes no sense, and this is one of the main reasons that many people are atheists. If God was not perfect then He must be just another life form like us, all be it much more evolved. This means that He is not a God, but only appears as one to us. Many people who look around at the world do not see the hand of a perfect designer, and as such do not believe in God.

It must be entirely possible that God is not omnipotent. Would that stop Him being our God? If He had powers that were awesome and staggering compared to ours, but not absolutely limitless, again would that stop him being our God? Would we still need him? Would it still be a benefit to obey His commandments and follow His rules?

 

[Bennettresearch]

It must be entirely possible that God is not omnipotent. Would that stop Him being our God? If He had powers that were awesome and staggering compared to ours, but not absolutely limitless, again would that stop him being our God? Would we still need him? Would it still be a benefit to obey His commandments and follow His rules?

hi Merlin,

This is almost the line I was going on in the other thread that borne this one. Not to get sucked into the Einstein thing but it would be relative. Therefore, as He is on such a greater level that we can't even comprehend, it is human fallacy that would expect Him to be perfect.

Food for thought. If God is perfect why does He whine so much in the OT. Stomping around, getting mad, threatening destruction on stupid humans. Is this any kind of example? And then, to top it off, he just leaves and doesn't come around anymore and talk to us.

 

[michel]

hi Merlin,

This is almost the line I was going on in the other thread that borne this one. Not to get sucked into the Einstein thing but it would be relative. Therefore, as He is on such a greater level that we can't even comprehend, it is human fallacy that would expect Him to be perfect.

Food for thought. If God is perfect why does He whine so much in the OT. Stomping around, getting mad, threatening destruction on stupid humans. Is this any kind of example? And then, to top it off, he just leaves and doesn't come around anymore and talk to us.

But he did.....in the form of Jesus Christ. There is much made between the 'faces' of God presented in the old and new testaments; I personally would rely far more on the new testament 'picture' of God.......

 

[lilithu]

Food for thought. If God is perfect why does He whine so much in the OT. Stomping around, getting mad, threatening destruction on stupid humans. Is this any kind of example? And then, to top it off, he just leaves and doesn't come around anymore and talk to us.

Jack Miles wrote a wonderful book a few years back called, "God: a biography," in which he argues that God was learning how to be God. He had never been God before until there was creation and so both He and humanity were learning how to deal with each other. Even if one doesn't believe in a personal God who stomps around, gets mad, and threatens destruction on us, I think the point is still valid. God is by necessity relational. If there is no creation to which to be God to, what is God?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

God is by necessity relational. If there is no creation to which to be God to, what is God?

An attribute set.

 

[Bennettresearch]

But he did.....in the form of Jesus Christ. There is much made between the 'faces' of God presented in the old and new testaments; I personally would rely far more on the new testament 'picture' of God.......

Hi Michel,

You are taking me much too serious here, I am just joking around. Tried to give a little chuckle. Yes, Jesus was criticized for not being a militaristic vengeful Messiah.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Jack Miles wrote a wonderful book a few years back called, "God: a biography," in which he argues that God was learning how to be God. He had never been God before until there was creation and so both He and humanity were learning how to deal with each other. Even if one doesn't believe in a personal God who stomps around, gets mad, and threatens destruction on us, I think the point is still valid. God is by necessity relational. If there is no creation to which to be God to, what is God?

Hi Lil,

I have contemplated this myself. How do we know whether God may be on a learning curve Himself? (sorry for the chauvanistic Him, but this is the way God is described in the Bible). To view a God that is static and remains so is paradoxical. All of our evidence in the universe is one of constant change and evolution. It is even harder to deal with something that has no beginning or genesis. And so, we have God as being undefinable and no idea where He came from.

 

[Bennettresearch]

An attribute set.

Hi Jay,

I like this!! Let's give God an attribute test and see if He is cutting it as God. Maybe one of those computerized tests you have to take to get a job nowadays. And so, the human resources department can decide whether God is qualified for the job or not. Wonderful idea.

 

[michel]

Jack Miles wrote a wonderful book a few years back called, "God: a biography," in which he argues that God was learning how to be God. He had never been God before until there was creation and so both He and humanity were learning how to deal with each other. Even if one doesn't believe in a personal God who stomps around, gets mad, and threatens destruction on us, I think the point is still valid. God is by necessity relational. If there is no creation to which to be God to, what is God?

Good food for thought but you are being far too logical and philosophical for a Saturday......

Hi Michel,
You are taking me much too serious here, I am just joking around. Tried to give a little chuckle. Yes, Jesus was criticized for not being a militaristic vengeful Messiah.

Ah well , I couldn't see the smile behind the print!

 

[mr.guy]

Hi Jay,

I like this!! Let's give God an attribute test and see if He is cutting it as God. Maybe one of those computerized tests you have to take to get a job nowadays. And so, the human resources department can decide whether God is qualified for the job or not. Wonderful idea.

Bennett, you're on a brilliantly sassy roll today!

 

[Bennettresearch]

Bennett, you're on a brilliantly sassy roll today!

Thanks Mr Guy.

As one sasser to another.

 

[pandamonk]

Can you give an example, or examples of imperfections in creation ?

The eye, may seem perfect, but has a blind spot. This is a fun site which shows an imperfection.